[PASSED] Disabled Voters Act

[Chester Pearson]

I don't vote them down because he is Catholic. I vote them down because he tends to act like he knows everything....

So, because he's Catholic, then?

I prefer not to fan the flames of that particular war.

[Christian Democrats]

I haven't really made any attempt to back up this proposal IC or OOC in this thread. (We're only on page two right now.)

I think the point is more that for those of us who want to play the game, your refusal to treat it as anything more than a forum for RL political arguments creates a bit of a disconnect. Sad little roleplay dorks we may be to you, but it's not like the game doesn't make accommodations for those purely interested in RL debate.

I'm not the one who's writing proposals reacting to and referencing real-life events.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I think the point is more that for those of us who want to play the game, your refusal to treat it as anything more than a forum for RL political arguments creates a bit of a disconnect. Sad little roleplay dorks we may be to you, but it's not like the game doesn't make accommodations for those purely interested in RL debate.

I'm not the one who's writing proposals reacting to and referencing real-life events. :roll:

Nor am I. :) That's an idea I've advocated for before. The branding is just a joke, really. I'm just waiting ("patience is virtue", remember) for comments on the text before revising it.

Though I'm gratified to learn that if I drop that proposal, you'll attempt an in-character defence of your proposal...?

[Nonesica]

Really? The proposal doesn't cover a person with a disorder such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome)? Just because it affects intelligence, as the majority of disorders do, doesn't mean the people with the disorders are not humans who do not deserve a voice.

I support your proposal in general, but this is a very serious problem I see in it that may force me to vote against it.

I don't think the General Assembly should force member states to extend voting rights to individuals whose mental ages are equivalent to those of prepubescent children. Of course, your nation would remain free to allow such citizens to vote on its own.

OOC: Voting restrictions on low-IQ individuals are not uncommon. In the United States, for example, there are intellectual disability restrictions in 38 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/issues/voter_qualification_chart-2008-06.pdf

First of all, this is NationStates. Real life isn't the best way to back up your points. Second of all, courts have to prove the person is incapable of voting to disqualify them. They can not have the mental capacity to read due to a disability, and as long as they have someone to read registration to them, they're fine. If they can't understand the registration, it will be explained to them in two-year-old language.

Having the mentality of prepubescent children is irrelevant. Just because someone may have a lower intelligence (which, by the way, there is no one accepted way of measuring) doesn't mean they aren't informed and haven't gone through enough experiences in life to be able to make a decision.

[Chester Pearson]

First of all, this is NationStates. Real life isn't the best way to back up your points. Second of all, courts have to prove the person is incapable of voting to disqualify them. They can not have the mental capacity to read due to a disability, and as long as they have someone to read registration to them, they're fine. If they can't understand the registration, it will be explained to them in two-year-old language.

Having the mentality of prepubescent children is irrelevant. Just because someone may have a lower intelligence (which, by the way, there is no one accepted way of measuring) doesn't mean they aren't informed and haven't gone through enough experiences in life to be able to make a decision.

You are beating you head against a brick wall my friend. That being said, this is a large waste of time that we are going to have to watch burn for three days. Hopefully when this is crushed, CD will start writing proposals that have some international significance....

Edit: OOC: Also I believe we have a strength violation here. There is no way in hell this can be significant strength. It would affect such a small aspect of the population.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"The UNE will support this. Though our government does not operate on democracy, in the rare municipal cases in which democracy is used, we do enforce similar policies to this."

[Bears Armed Mission]

Furthermore, this proposal makes no allowance for those nations with confederal or federal government systems within which jurisdiction over voting rights is held by a "lower" tier of government rather than at the 'national' level.

You should reread the proposal . . .

Every time I refer to "member states," I refer to "political subdivisions" in the same breath, thus accounting for non-unitary states, where voting rights and regulations might be determined on the subnational level.

OOC: Re the USA's constitution, I stand corrected, but not every national constitution that leaves the determination of voting rights in the jurisdiction of that nation’s political subdivisions’ necessarily includes such an “over-ride” option even in RL. (For another RL example, I’m fairly sure that the Swiss Confederation [at least in the pre-Napoleonic period] couldn’t over-ride the rights of its member cantons in such matters…) On the main point of disagreement here, however (and shifting to IC) _

“Yes? I have read it.
The national government choosing to ratify this proposed resolution would be what caused the subdivisions to adopt that policy, not those subdivisions' own individual choices about this matter, and thus it would still be a case of the national government unconstitutionally imposing policy on the separate Clans or hwhatever other type of political subdivisions the nation in question has.”

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

[Old Hope]

You should reread the proposal . . .

Every time I refer to "member states," I refer to "political subdivisions" in the same breath, thus accounting for non-unitary states, where voting rights and regulations might be determined on the subnational level.

OOC: Re the USA's constitution, I stand corrected, but not every national constitution that leaves the determination of voting rights in the jurisdiction of that nation’s political subdivisions’ necessarily includes such an “over-ride” option even in RL. (For another RL example, I’m fairly sure that the Swiss Confederation [at least in the pre-Napoleonic period] couldn’t over-ride the rights of its member cantons in such matters…) On the main point of disagreement here, however (and shifting to IC) _

“Yes? I have read it.
The national government choosing to ratify this proposed resolution would be what caused the subdivisions to adopt that policy, not those subdivisions' own individual choices about this matter, and thus it would still be a case of the national government unconstitutionally imposing policy on the separate Clans or hwhatever other type of political subdivisions the nation in question has.”

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

It would be constitutional, because World Assembly resolutions are part of your constitution, and they are the highest law of your land. As long as you are in the WA, of course. Any clauses in your constitution are rewritten if they collide with WA resolutions. The clans allowed the World Assembly to remove any rights from them and to force them to do anything the WA wants the moment they accepted to join the WA.

[Bears Armed Mission]

It would be constitutional, because World Assembly resolutions are part of your constitution,

Since when?!? They are ratified as [ordinary] laws, like any other treaties, not as constitutional amendments.

[Old Hope]

It would be constitutional, because World Assembly resolutions are part of your constitution,

Since when?!? They are ratified as [ordinary] laws, like any other treaties, not as constitutional amendments.

Ok, that wasn't really correct, but they still supersede any national form of law, including constitutions.

[Separatist Peoples]

Since when?!? They are ratified as [ordinary] laws, like any other treaties, not as constitutional amendments.

Ok, that wasn't really correct, but they still supersede any national form of law, including constitutions.

"Which is not the same thing as becoming constitutional. You really ought to consider these things you say before spouting them, ambassador." Bell chuckled.

[Old Hope]

Ok, that wasn't really correct, but they still supersede any national form of law, including constitutions.

"Which is not the same thing as becoming constitutional. You really ought to consider these things you say before spouting them, ambassador." Bell chuckled.

It is the same thing. Because membership in the World Assembly empowers the WA to alter any conflicting form of law in the member states, including constitutions.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Which is not the same thing as becoming constitutional. You really ought to consider these things you say before spouting them, ambassador." Bell chuckled.

It is the same thing. Because membership in the World Assembly empowers the WA to alter any conflicting form of law in the member states, including constitutions.

"No. It isn't. Constitutional law implies that it is a series of founding principals laid down in law. Not all nations have a constitution of their highest laws, as national law doesn't have to be in a constitution to be binding. Ergo, it is not the same thing. Don't spout bullshit you know isn't true, ambassador."

[Christian Democrats]

Why should non-democratic states be allowed to have any say in the electoral processes of democratic states?

Most member states are democratic, and this is essentially an equal rights proposal. Is it not true, if this proposal passes, that disabled individuals and able-bodied ones will be on equal footing within their nations, democratic or non-democratic?

If they can't understand the registration, it will be explained to them in two-year-old language.

Having the mentality of prepubescent children is irrelevant.

Does your nation allow prepubescent children to vote? If an adult is unable to understand the process unless it is explained to him in "two-year-old language," don't you think it would be unwise for him to be involved in that process in which he helps decide on matters that will affect the lives of other adults? If he cannot dictate his own life, why should he be dictating the lives of other citizens?

You should reread the proposal . . .

Every time I refer to "member states," I refer to "political subdivisions" in the same breath, thus accounting for non-unitary states, where voting rights and regulations might be determined on the subnational level.

“Yes? I have read it.
The national government choosing to ratify this proposed resolution would be what caused the subdivisions to adopt that policy, not those subdivisions' own individual choices about this matter, and thus it would still be a case of the national government unconstitutionally imposing policy on the separate Clans or hwhatever other type of political subdivisions the nation in question has.”

I'm afraid you're mistaken. The national government does not have to ratify a resolution for it to be effective. Membership in the World Assembly itself is agreement to abide by its legislation whether or not your nation agrees or disagrees (ratifies or does not ratify) with any particular resolution. As long as support exceeds 50 percent, it must be incorporated into your laws. This proposal would permit that incorporation of international law to be done by national governments or by their "political subdivisions" (states, provinces, territories, clans, etc.), so it does account for federal and confederal setups.

Your argument -- each subdivision did not make an individual choice to join the World Assembly -- could be made against any resolution. Internal disagreement with your national government's WA membership is purely a domestic issue.

[Chester Pearson]

Most member states are democratic, and this is essentially an equal rights proposal. Is it not true, if this proposal passes, that disabled individuals and able-bodied ones will be on equal footing within their nations, democratic or non-democratic?

You have yet to explain how this would "significantly" affect member states. Is there really that many disabled voters out there?

[Christian Democrats]

Most member states are democratic, and this is essentially an equal rights proposal. Is it not true, if this proposal passes, that disabled individuals and able-bodied ones will be on equal footing within their nations, democratic or non-democratic?

You have yet to explain how this would "significantly" affect member states.

I already explained this on Friday, so you're apparently criticizing this proposal and me without even reading my comments.

I'd also question if the strength is appropriate.

A mild proposal would suggest that nations provide accommodations for disabled individuals.

A strong proposal would cover more people, not just a small minority of national populations.

Do you wish for me to elaborate?

[Chester Pearson]

You have yet to explain how this would "significantly" affect member states.

I already explained this on Friday, so you're apparently criticizing this proposal and me without even reading my comments.

A mild proposal would suggest that nations provide accommodations for disabled individuals.

A strong proposal would cover more people, not just a small minority of national populations.

Do you wish for me to elaborate?

A mild proposal would suggest that nations provide accommodations for disabled individuals.

Which is all this does, yet you submitted it at SIGNIFICANT strength. How do you explain this anomaly? It doesn't really matter. I have filed a GHR to have the mods look into the strength of this one.

[The Dark Star Republic]

A mild proposal would suggest that nations provide accommodations for disabled individuals.

Which is all this does, yet you submitted it at SIGNIFICANT strength. How do you explain this anomaly? It doesn't really matter. I have filed a GHR to have the mods look into the strength of this one.

You're missing the word "suggest". He's saying a soft, non-mandatory proposal would be Mild; a mandatory proposal does more than "suggest": it requires, as per this law.

In fairness the Ideological Ban rule means it's very hard to write Significant/Strong Furtherment of Democracy proposals, so I personally don't think the strength here is unreasonable.

[Chester Pearson]

Which is all this does, yet you submitted it at SIGNIFICANT strength. How do you explain this anomaly? It doesn't really matter. I have filed a GHR to have the mods look into the strength of this one.

You're missing the word "suggest". He's saying a soft, non-mandatory proposal would be Mild; a mandatory proposal does more than "suggest": it requires, as per this law.

In fairness the Ideological Ban rule means it's very hard to write Significant/Strong Furtherment of Democracy proposals, so I personally don't think the strength here is unreasonable.

So you are saying that the Nuclear Arms Protocol which demanded nations refrain from using nuclear weapons against civilians was too mild then, as it didn't simply suggest member nations refrain?

One has to take into account the scope of the resolution. All this requires is that members make the necessary accommodations for disabled voters. Yes I do understand that this clause:

5. Grants any person covered by Section 1 or an appropriate representative the right to sue the government in an appropriate domestic court and to receive appropriate equitable relief from that tribunal if the government does not meet its obligations under this resolution;

is there as well, but I still don't believe that one clause can significantly boost the scope of the entire resolution. I really don't expect the mods to yank this one though. In getting Railaina's proposal yanked, I probably used up my get of jail free card. One can only hope that the large delegates can see this has no international value whatsoever and stack against this one quickly. (I know Mousey will.... )

[Tea Party USA 2]

Yeah I do not see voting rights as a WA issue. The democratic system of one nation is different from others, going around and nitpicking the requirements and regulations of said democracy infringes on National Sovereignty and seems like a waste of time.

[The Dark Star Republic]

So you are saying that the Nuclear Arms Protocol which demanded nations refrain from using nuclear weapons against civilians was too mild then, as it didn't simply suggest member nations refrain?

No. And my post made quite clear that I think the FoD category needs to be judged a bit differently from categories such as Human Rights or International Security, where much more sweeping legislation is possible (and which is a stance the mods have also seemed to support in the past).

[Christian Democrats]

A mild proposal would suggest that nations provide accommodations for disabled individuals.

Which is all this does, yet you submitted it at SIGNIFICANT strength. How do you explain this anomaly? It doesn't really matter. I have filed a GHR to have the mods look into the strength of this one.

According to the Rules of the General Assembly:

Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES."

This proposal does not suggest, recommend, or urge anything. It declares a new legal right (sec. 1), it requires nations to provide one sort of accommodation to that end (sec. 2), it directs nations to provide additional accommodations until the disabled and abled are on an "equal" footing with one another (sec. 4), and it grants the disabled the right to sue the government until equality is achieved (sec. 5).

A mild proposal in the Furtherment of Democracy category would be one that merely recommends some course of democratic action.

I really don't expect the mods to yank this one though. In getting Railaina's proposal yanked, I probably used up my get of jail free card.

So you admit that this is a frivolous claim against my proposal?

[Chester Pearson]

So you admit that this is a frivolous claim against my proposal?

Did I say that? I have made my stance very clear, that is clearly out of the WA's purview, and am not going to get suckered in on this one. I fully intend to use my four votes against this one, no matter what my region-mates say on it. I know they will support my decision anyway.

Best of luck (you are going to need it)....

[Christian Democrats]

So you admit that this is a frivolous claim against my proposal?

Did I say that? I have made my stance very clear, that is clearly out of the WA's purview, and am not going to get suckered in on this one.

This proposal cannot be outside the WA's purview as far as moderation goes because Furtherment of Democracy is a WA category.

[Ainocra]

OOC:

makes one wonder if we should have a furtherment of dictatorship category too

IC:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz